On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 1:43 PM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 23, 2024 at 10:32:31AM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote: > > I realised that there is another aspect to this: it must be impossible > > to build PostgreSQL with the original MinGW/MSYS project by now. I > > don't understand the history of the MinGW/MinGW-w64 fork, but if > > they're both still live projects out there adding to the general > > confusion about the frankenwindows multiverse, we should clarify our > > situation. As far as I know, we're only testing the second thing, and > > only the second thing can use UCRT, and only the second thing is a > > viable alternative toolchain for software that is primarily targeting > > current Visual Studio, which I think is something we can say about our > > project. Right? > > FWIW, I am not seeing any advantage in mentioning MinGW at all at this > stage, just extra maintenance burden. As far as I know, MinGW is a > gcc port that has only a 32b implementation. MinGW-w64 is built on > top of it and it includes *both* 32b and 64b implementations, as you > say, with more WIN32 APIs than the former. > > So +1 to simplify a bit that stuff.
Thanks. I'm going to have a go at adjusting the docs myself so I can get this committed. Invitation remains open for someone closer to the topic to rewrite in a later commit as required for maximum utility to the reader (I'm never going to install MSYS2, or Windows, I just want to blow away as much dead code as possible here as it's in the way of multithreading and other modernisation projects).
